§
Subdivision 1.Injunction.
The attorney general or any county attorney may institute a civil action in the name of the state in the district court for an injunction prohibiting any violation of sections 325F.68 to 325F.70. The court, upon proper proof that defendant has engaged in a practice made enjoinable by section 325F.69, may enjoin the future commission of such practice. It shall be no defense to such an action that the state may have adequate remedies at law.
§
Subd. 2.Service of process.
Service of process shall be as in any other civil suit, except that where a defendant in such action is a natural person or firm residing outside the state, or is a foreign corporation, service of process may also be made by personal service outside the state, or in the manner provided by section 5.25, or in such manner as the court may direct. Process is valid if it satisfies the requirements of due process of law, whether or not defendant is doing business in Minnesota regularly or habitually.
§
Subd. 3.Private enforcement.
(a) In addition to the remedies otherwise provided by law, a consumer injured by a violation of sections 325F.68 to 325F.70, in connection with a sale of merchandise for personal, family, household, or agricultural purposes, may bring a civil action and recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney fees, and receive other equitable relief as determined by the court. An action brought under this section benefits the public.
(b) For the purposes of this subdivision:
(1) "consumer" means a natural person or family farmer;
(2) "family farmer" means a person or persons operating a family farm; and
(3) "family farm" has the meaning given in section 116B.02, subdivision 6.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Hatch v. Cross Country Bank, Inc., 703 N.W.2d 562 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 1 (2004). The Automatic-Dialing-Announcing Devices Act provides that: *573 A person who is found to have violated sections 325E.”
Tatone v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 857 F. Supp. 2d 821 (D. Minnesota 2012).
· cites it 2× “1 (describing the remedies available for violations of the DTPA, damages not available); Minn.Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 1 (stating that a civil action for an injunction under the CFA is brought by the attorney general or any county attorney).”
Duxbury v. Spex Feeds, Inc., 681 N.W.2d 380 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 1 (2002). *389 But damages and attorney fees may be available through the private attorney general statute, Minn.”
Toth v. Arason, 722 N.W.2d 437 (Minn. 2006).
· cites it 4× “The Consumer Fraud Act states: The act, use, or employment by any person of any fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise, whether…”
Flora v. Firepond, Inc., 260 F. Supp. 2d 780 (D. Minnesota 2003).
· cites it 3× “Section 325F.70 limits remedies under the CFA to injunctive relief sought by the Minnesota Attorney General.”
Est. of Riedel Ex Rel. Mirick v. Life Care Ret. Communities, Inc., 505 N.W.2d 78 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 1 (1992) In addition, a private party injured by a violation of the Consumer Fraud Law may bring a civil action to recover damages, costs of investigation, attorney fees and other equitable relief.”
Mobile Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. v. Racheal L. Hooten f/k/a Racheal L. Jones, 889 N.W.2d 27 (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “1, states that “[t]he act, use, or employment by any person of any fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise, whether or not any…”
Knox v. Impact MHC Mgmt., LLC (D. Minnesota 2025).
· cites it 3× “See Minn. Stat. § 325F.70, subd. 3. However, Knox’s MCFA claim may proceed because she alleges an injury nearly identical to the one at issue in Engstrom.”
Sadeghi-A v. Daimler Trucks North Am. LLC (D. Minnesota 2022).
· cites it 2× “a Consumer Fraud Act provides: The act, use, or employment by any person of any fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise, whether…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.